dr bob

Many moons ago, when 5-MPH safety bumpers were being mandated (late 1960's design period for early 1970's production models), MB made the astute recommendation that driver's should avoid running into things.

Models in those years had no cup holders, we didn't have cell phones to distract us, no ABS or traction control, disk brakes were just coming into fashion on nicer models, and driving was a full-time job. People in bigger/heavier cars survived accidents better than those in the smaller cars they collided with.

Fast-forward to today, where there are scores of distractions designed into the cars from the beginning. Animated NAV screens, bluetooth-linked phone and text terminals on the dash, heated seats to make it easier to sleep while driving, all steer a driver's focus from the driving task. We drive in insulated cocoons of climate-controlled airbag-protected sound-eliminated comfort, oblivious to what's going on anywhere but maybe right ahead of us, where that maroon is only going ten over the limit and holding me up. Thank goodness that self-driving cars will be here soon. They will work fine once all the vehicles are that smart. Until then, just one maroon in a not-so-smart car will be the menace.



Dear neighbors who run stop signs, pay no attention to other drivers, and treat their four-ton leased and under-insured rolling IED's as disposable toys: Please don't crash into my car, especially if I happen to be in it.


[/rant mode]

Tom in Austin

Interesting ... if all manufacturers do is simulate and certify, you'd think there'd be a long trail of product liability suits in which plantiffs allege the design didn't actually meet the requirements, and mfgs were pressed to produce their data/testing to prove they did.

Seems there must be a step in there where mfg delivers something to the regulator for a sign-off so they have a further defense to such claims than only that they believed it met the requirements.

ThetaTau87

That is not what I said. I said they are not required to do physical testing. I'm not aware of any manufactures who do not do physical testing. There is much more simulation work done now than in the past, but the final word is still physical testing. This is done exactly for the reason you stated, liability protection, not a Federal requirement.

You don't need to prove anything to the government to sell cars to the public. You only need to certify that the vehicle meets all the required standards. If a collision occurs that raises suspicion that the vehicle does not meet the standards then it is on the manufacturer to provide proof that all standards were met. This is where it is very beneficial to have physical test results that verify compliance to the standard and that the tests were performed as described in the FMVSS test procedures.

If it is proven that a company sold cars that don't meet the standards there are HUGE Federal fines as well as the liability to any individuals that were injured.

In Europe the regulations are different and a representative from the government must be present during testing to verify that the vehicle passed the required tests.

Avar928

What was the case for the 959?

I'm guessing the laws were changed afterwards for physical crash testing.

AO

Only if you aren't wearing your seatbelt.

michaelathome

The 959 was an odd ball,

- Low production number
- High horsepower
- New materials
- New suspension and driveline designs
- The list goes on.....

I think that Porsche probably said f-it and didn't push for the importation to the US due to associated costs. There have been some cars that have been re-worked and are here in the US legally now due to updates to the cars overall design as well as improved standards/testing.

IIRC there is a shop on the west coast that will perform the needed changes to bring into the US legally but it is going to cost you a pretty penny. Why rumors exist about Balmer and Gates having them parked that have never made it into the US astonishes me.


Michael

ThetaTau87

Probably true. IIRC Porsche lost money on every 959 produced so crash testing them would have only lead to even more losses and not gained much in the way of image to sell them in the US.

Any car manufactured more than 25 years ago can be imported without meeting the FMVSS requirements that were in place at the time. Most 959s are older than that now so they can be brought in with no modifications.

I've heard stories about Porsche fans with DEEP pockets (Bill Gates, Jerry Seinfeld, etc...) going to great lengths to get their 959s on the road legally, but I don't know exactly what had to be done to the cars or how much political string pulling was involved.

Randy V

Silly wabbit.

They all do testing, including Porsche. There is no requirement to post the results on the car.

dprantl

A fairly recent Porsche crash test. Funny, it looks like a beetle afterwards


Dan
'91 928GT S/C 475hp/460lb.ft

dprantl

This one looks like it is done by some US authority...


Dan
'91 928GT S/C 475hp/460lb.ft

Eplebnista

The 959 did not come into the US because Porsche did not want it to come here. Since Porsche would not certify the 959 to US standards and would not release test data to anyone who asked, it was up to the importers to establish that the car would meet US standards. That is a tall order.

As far a crash test ratings are concerned, IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) and NHTSA both do ratings. The IIHS is private and funded by insurance companies. NHTSA is gubmint and funded by you. The NHTSA program is called NCAP (New Car Assessment Program). NCAP crash tests selected vehicles each year and assigns star ratings based on performance in the NCAP tests. Since safety actually does sell cars nowadays, each star is very meaningful to manufacturers.

AFAIK, the 928 was never tested under NCAP. IIRC, the 928 came and went before IIHS had the ability to do the kind of crash tests it does now.

As far as testing to mandatory minimum performance standards such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, ECE and the like, each system is a bit different. In the US, there is no requirement that anybody test a vehicle before offering for sale. A manufacturer must certify that a vehicle meets all Federal standards but the law only requires that they have a good faith basis for doing so. Almost all vehicle manufacturers selling vehicles in the US test extensively before they certify and sell a single vehicle. Most of this is done in pre-production and the data collected then is used as the basis for certifying the vehicle during the product cycle. In all likelihood, much of the data used by Porsche for certifying the last GTS was collected in the 70's.

For enforcement purposes, NHTSA buys vehicles from dealerships and tests them to ensure that production vehicles have been properly certified. These tests are not used to generate ratings but to ensure that production vehicles are meeting the minimums required by law. Again, if you are deciding how to spend the public's money in a way that produces the maximum benefit, you are much more likely to buy and test something that most people drive instead of a low volume, high dollar vehicle.

Avar928

They helped pass the "Show and Display" law which makes rare cars street legal as long as it's driven only 2,500 miles annually and the car itself shows some historical and or technological significance.

danglerb

The 928 handling and braking combined with the structural strength put it very high on my list of best vehicle to be in if the stuff hits the fan. The 928 also has a lot of driver and passenger space missing on many cars, that would have to be squished before injury. The torque tube has to add a bunch to the crash safety as well, its not going to collapse easily.